2.9 Beta version

(QW was quicker than me)I too want to express that I find that there is a great quality in the analysis/comments raised here.If QW can harness these remarks (not an easy task) to include all the feedback in the rules, we will achieve a great set of rules !

For your information, I'd like to add some points. I wish they would help you to create a better laid out version.

page 6, Inactive Players wrote:

While a player is not active, their only options are: ...

"A player is not active" seems not to be a good expression. because "active" is not precisely defined in Game Terms section. I think that "While a player is not an active player," is a better. What would you think?

page 15, Choose a Target, 4th paragraph wrote:

An area is an obstacle if it contains any unit, or any 3D terrain.

I could not find the definition of "3D terrain." 3D terrain can be interpreted as 3D elements. However, Cliff, Sand Dunes and Wall have no 3D elements but they are obstacles. Would you change this expression in order to include the obstacle areas which do not have 3D elements?

page 32, Obstacles entry wrote:

Obstacle: an area that a unit can make a Range 1+ ATTACK into, but not through.

In page 15, "You can ATTACK out of an obstacle, or into an obstacle, but never through one." Thus, it may be good to add "out of" to this entry, such like: Obstacle: an area that a unit can make a Range 1+ ATTACK out of or into, but not through.

Inactive/active. To avoid confusion (especially for non-native English speakers) between units and players it would be better to somehow keep activation for units and turn for players. And then prefer "during / out of activation" for units and "during/out of turn" for players instead of active/not active for both.

I don't know if this would make sense or not... My 2 cents contribution.

On the PnP Player Aides there are descriptions of the little icons that accompany the units powers. What from the new rules replaces the "Instant Power" term seen on the Player Aide? (Its the starburst symbol)

Only thing I could find that was new was the permanent passive power but the two definitions don't align.

Inactive/active. To avoid confusion (especially for non-native English speakers) between units and players it would be better to somehow keep activation for units and turn for players. And then prefer "during / out of activation" for units and "during/out of turn" for players instead of active/not active for both.

I don't know if this would make sense or not... My 2 cents contribution.

With respect, I think this would be overkill, because to me (a native English speaker) the rules are very clear about whether they're talking about a player or a unit. In particular, "active player" is used every time the rules are talking about a player. Also, I absolutely understood what was meant every time I read the word "activate" or "activated" or "activation".

If absolute explicit clarity was desired, here's a suggestion:

Turn SequenceEvery turn consists of the following phases. [add sentence: The player whose turn it is is the active player.]The active player must complete each step....

The idea is to define the term "active player" at the moment it's first introduced, to avoid anyone having to turn to the Game Terms to figure out what it means. Having said that:* As a native English speaker (and a long-time board gamer), I instantly understood what was meant by "active player", so perhaps this sentence is not necessary.* The term "active player" is clearly and accurately defined in the Game Terms "The player whose turn it is", so this sentence is definitely redundant.* Can a non-native English speaker easily understand this sentence ? Two "is" in a row! If not, that defeats the whole purpose of inserting the sentence.

I think I've just argued myself out of supporting my own suggestion. Anyway, there's my reasoning for (not) adding that sentence.

Ryo wrote:

page 6, Inactive Players wrote:

While a player is not active, their only options are: ...

"A player is not active" seems not to be a good expression. because "active" is not precisely defined in Game Terms section. I think that "While a player is not an active player," is a better. What would you think?

I thought I would disagree with this suggestion, because even though "active" is not a defined term in the Game Terms section, "active player" and "active unit" (and "active power") are. However, on thorough reading, I do agree with this suggestion, because it adds explicit clarity, and consistency in use of game terms, while still being absolutely readable. I'd suggest one small tweak, though: "While a player is not [the] active player...." ("the" instead of "an" because there is one and only one active player).

It might be an idea to add to the Game Terms section:activate: to start a unit's activation. Only the active player may activate a unit. < erm ... except for Leader ... >

Proofreading notes:* in the Maneuvers section, in the "who can do this" column, "active player" is not bolded three times* in the Turn Sequence section, "activation" is not bolded four times* in the Limit of Activations section, the word "activating" (specifically "activatING" rather than "activate") is used for the only time in the rules. For consistency, I suggest altering this sentence to: "... the Leader talent may allow a player the option TO ACTIVATE further units from friendly armies."* in the Limit of Activations section, the word "activate" is bolded - but it is not a defined word in the Game Terms section. It is not useful to expect people looking for "activate" in the Game Terms to find "activation". Either add the term "activate" to the Game Terms (and bold "activate" or "activated" everywhere), or de-bold it here (and everywhere - I believe it's bolded in a couple of other places, too). Note that if you add the term "activate" to the Game Terms, that also covers "activated" (and "activating").

You can't normally activate a second unit during your turn. So a second activation is, for me, always a maneuver.

The only part of shadow would be for second activation due to the Talent LEADER: because it's not a special actionper se, it's just by default with that specific unit. Is it a maneuver or not? As it counts to the maximum activation during a turn for the active player, I guess it is.

The chart about players' turn contains the second activation because you can only activate 2 units max during your turn (3 with Athena but this is an exception). So this is a sort of extended turn chart. And second activation happens quite often in the game.

I quite like your definition of maneuvers but it would conflict with the use of some Powers (using AoW cards) which are replacing normal attack and not expanding the player's turn.

BTW thanks for the your explanations about active. I had probably thrown my thoughts too quickly.

One thing I wanted to make sure we remembered is to put "You Are In A Good Place" somewhere in the rulebooks. Someone had this as an idea earlier last year and I thought that would be very appropriate for this KS! I am still in waiting mode with a stupid grin telling people whether they want to hear or not about this game and how they should get it and then we can hold enormous games at the local store and force the Magic players to squeeze into a smaller space! ...Well maybe I don't get that detailed...Usually..

- Question : If Hydra (max range for attack = 1) is in the area of the Manticore (flying unit). Do I have to make a range 0 attack or can I declare a range 1 attack to avoid an evade manoeuvre ?Nothing in the rules precise if I have to attack at range 0 or if I can choose.

Atapoti wrote:

The retaliation section actually already states specifically: "Retaliation does not count as a unit's activation."Couldn't be more clear than that.

Still keep the activation cards in the game allow retaliation and deployment.

Why? I think this will encourage people to start choosing troops and using them to block and get into the fight. They will be expendable but wont feel like your wasting a valuable activation on potentially cannon fodder.

Hopefully people who are play testing will give it a go and let me know how it works out.

I am looking at the BoW video - Hephaistos map with lava. Herakles (played by Léo) is pushed into Lava (5-dice attack so I guess "dormant") by the Hydra's attack and Léo choose where Herakles moves exiting lava.This is in contradiction with the 2.9 rules:

Lava - Dormant wrote:

Terrain effect: a unit cannot end a turn in this area. If a unit enters an area of dormant lava, they become the target of a 5 dice ATTACK. The unit is then moved 1 area into any adjacent non-lava area chosen by the opposing player.

Actually it was my suggestion that the unit's owner choose where to go next - so you could decide to move into lava and take the damage but cross anyway.

There is a lot of use for Mighty Throw as soon as lava is involved (as I guessed previously). This takes also for a new way to use this talent :- either you throw your enemy into lava for additional damages- or you throw him out of the way or closer to youYou cannot throw him out if you push him into lava because the unit's owner can chose to come back on its original area (this was performed a number of times during the game).

It was also mentioned that you can throw away a "guarding" unit when performing an area attack but I am still not convinced the rules *as written* permit this :Mighty Throw description states that :

2.9 beta wrote:

Resolve the ATTACK before dealing with any blank results.

Here, I understand that the area ATTACK has to be resolved completely before applying mighty throw effect.

Very nice game. The shooting was fine : you could always understand what was happening on the board. And there are tons of explanation on units strengths, why to pick them, why deciding for this move during the game.

Block: ... No enemy unit can CLAIM an omphalos that is in this area. ...

Could a God or Titan, who does not have the Block talent, ABSORB an omphalos in an area occupied by an enemy unit that has the Block talent?It seems to me that this action should not be allowed either.

At the same time, if a friendly unit has the Block talent too, it makes sense that the friendly unit could CLAIM the omphalos and then the God/Titan could ABSORB it afterwards.

This way caught on BGG, figured I'd post it here since it's likely to get missed:

Quote :

"If a unit type (see page XXX) is described as ignoring terrain effects of a particular terrain type, all paragraph(s) starting with “Terrain effect” are considered not to exist. The terrain remains an obstacle if it normally is one.""RocksThis area is an obstacle.3D elements: large rocky outcrop. This 3D element cannot be removed.Terrain effect: units cannot WALK, RUN, or DEPLOY into this area.Terrain effect: units in this area gain +1 Offence, +1 Range, and ignore obstacles when determining whether a target is visible or not."

So only a unit that can ignore Rock terrain can move onto on a rock, but any such unit would also ignore the bonus for being on the rock.

That same topic on BGG was also discussing how a you can only Evade range 0 attacks, but if the attacker has a range 2+ stat, he ignores the evade. Yet, a unit with a range 1 stat can somehow be evaded at range 0, but suddenly ignore the evade at range 1.

This is fairly awkward to wrap your head around from both a rules perspective and a thematic perspective. I would love this to be changed to a flying unit can evade all attacks except from unit who have a stat of Range 2+. This would make the rule not only simpler, but it would make more thematic sense (flying unit can evade a short range or melee attack, but can't evade someone who has a medium to far range attack). I know this would have to be run by Benoit, but its something that should be considered.

The reason flyers Evade is because units don't have the capability to reach them. Few units have a range of 2 so your suggestion would make flying unbalancing. I think that units with a range more than 0 should be able to avoid being Evaded whether they are in the same area or not.

The reason flyers Evade is because units don't have the capability to reach them. Few units have a range of 2 so your suggestion would make flying unbalancing. I think that units with a range more than 0 should be able to avoid being Evaded whether they are in the same area or not.

Perhaps you're right. Range 1+ may be better for ignoring evade, although I wonder if that makes flying units less worthwhile since half the units are Range 1+.

While we're talking about it, there is one part that's not clear in the current rules. Do units that have a special attack power with range 2+ able to ignore the evade (i.e. Zeus' lightning) when they use that attack? The rules imply that only the unit's range stat matters, not the range of the attack being used.

After reading the rules again, it specifies only range 0 attacks made at range 0-1 (such as a range 0 unit on a rock or attacking into an area at full capacity) can be evaded. Thus, if a unit normally has a range of 1+, they cannot be evaded. This makes this much more sensible. My only addition to it would be that this includes whether they are in the same area or not. Also, Zeus' lightning is a range 3 attack so it cannot be evaded.

After reading the rules again, it specifies only range 0 attacks made at range 0-1 (such as a range 0 unit on a rock or attacking into an area at full capacity) can be evaded. Thus, if a unit normally has a range of 1+, they cannot be evaded. This makes this much more sensible. My only addition to it would be that this includes whether they are in the same area or not. Also, Zeus' lightning is a range 3 attack so it cannot be evaded.

Where are you seeing this? The only place I can find Evade being talked about is page 26, and there is says a unit can use Evade "...when a flying unit in the player's army is declared to be the target of a Range 0 ATTACK (including an area or multiple ATTACK) by a unit with a Range of 0-1."

Meaning that you can evade a Range 0 attack from a unit with a stat of Range 1.